Menu

Why Abortion is Not a Woman’s Choice

Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court truncated the democratic process of dealing with abortion from state to state in 1972, the issue has been defended as being a “woman’s choice.”

Apologies for bluntness, but this is an immoral position.

There is really only one question in this debate: Is that which is within a woman’s womb a person, or is it a blob of protoplasm that might one day be a person? Secondarily, if it is the latter, at what point does the transformation take place? From these answers will flow rational and moral clarity on the question of abortion.

In 1972, you could at least rely on scientific ignorance to claim the fetus was equivalent to a tumor. Although even then, the medical profession knew because of what came out of a late term abortion or miscarriage. That’s probably why so few doctors ever have performed abortions. It was not particularly rational, considering women feeling the punch of an elbow or kick of a heel — person parts. But the general public could squint its eyes real hard and blur to the idea that it was not a baby until birth.

Technology clarifier

But now, with the advance of technology, we can see clearly the baby in the womb. We can measure brain waves, heart beats and most heart-rending, we can watch the baby’s response to threat and pain. Planned Parenthood harvested human organs from “aborted fetuses” and then sold them. Human organs. That’s a pretty compelling case for that being a person in the womb.

The world understands that carrying a baby to term and giving birth and then having a child to raise is an enormous undertaking. That’s why it is supposed to be done in families, in which a mother and a father are committed to each other for life. It is meant to be a shared undertaking and a thing of beauty — not something to be destroyed when inconvenient or accidental.

The magnitude of the task notwithstanding, however, the science is overwhelming now on the morality of ending a pregnancy.

Considering what we know today about the fetus in the womb, it is morally indefensible to any longer consider that fetus anything other than a person. The obviousness of this point — made by Planned Parenthood, no less, selling human body parts — is a primary reason why every attempt at debate on the issue is deflected. It is a woman’s choice. It is between a woman and her doctor. It is about women’s health. It is reproductive health care and so on. Staying on the point of this being the purposeful death of a baby is a losing position, so it must be shifted from that.

Now, it is no longer simply squinting to make abortion acceptable, it is eyes tightly closed while repeating “woman’s choice” and “women’s health” arguments. In this one area, defenders of a “woman’s choice” are arguing that it is okay to kill a baby. There is no way around it. It is obfuscation at the highest level, for the lowest purpose.

Is early on OK?

Now perhaps you can see this when the baby in the womb is developed, but not so clearly at the earliest moments of conception. After all, even science does not suggest brain waves or heart beats in the first days.

Those two measurements of whether a person has died or is a live still show up at three weeks for the heart pumping blood and six weeks for brain waves to be measured. The problem immediately encountered here is exactly when should we say, with life-and-death certainty, that the non-human fetus becomes a human. Any point along the line is going to be arbitrary, meaning that we will be assigning death sentences based on an arbitrary line. That does not really hold moral water, either.

Remember, pro-choice activists and leaders support a woman’s right to kill her baby up until it exits the birth canal. That is the position of Hillary Clinton, the Democrat Party and some in the Republican Party. Sometimes they chant woman’s choice, sometimes they make the viability argument. It is not a human with rights until it is viable outside the woman, by which they mean the umbilical cord has been cut and it can survive on its own. But this also holds no intellectual water as the baby is still totally dependent on the mother’s, someone else’s, care for many years.

In the end, the “woman’s choice” defense of aborting unborn babies is morally and intellectually indefensible.

Pro-choice says a woman has a right to kill this if she so chooses, through several subterfuge arguments. Let your own eyes decide if that is moral or immoral.